Brand-new therapy sends some cancers into total remission

A Promising New Cancer Therapy
That's Under Attack

In 2008-2009, four human studies appeared claiming fantastic results for a groundbreaking new cancer treatment. The studies were conducted Dr. Nabuto Yamamoto, who at the time was a Professor of Biochemistry at Temple University Medical School in Philadelphia. He was assisted by a team of other researchers.

If the results hold up, the new treatment – a natural enzyme found in a healthy human body — could be one of the most exciting new cancer developments ever seen.

In the first study, Dr. Yamamoto supplied the enzyme to doctors treating HIV patients — resulting in complete eradication of the infection. After seven years follow-up, their blood counts remained normal.

In another study, the Yamamoto team treated 16 nonanemic metastatic breast cancer patients with a single injection of 100 nanograms of GcMAF per week for 22 weeks. The treatment resulted in tumor eradication. Patients were well after four years follow-up.

In the third study, all 16 nonanemic metastatic prostate patients were tumor-free after 24 weeks and remained so at seven years follow-up.

In the fourth study, all eight nonanemic metastatic colorectal patients were cancer-free after 48 weeks and remained so at seven years follow-up as confirmed by CT scans.

In short – and astonishing as it sounds -- Professor Yamamoto achieved a 100% remission rate in metastatic cancer patients.

The discovery didn’t happen overnight. It was the product of years of research at a respected mainstream medical institution.

Continued....

Cure deadly breast cancer with oxygen!?

Cure One of TheDeadliest Breast Cancers
With Oxygen!?

A breast surgeon laughed at
this safe home treatment , until
it saved his wife’s life when no scalpel could...

It’s a remarkable story that most breast cancer surgeons would rather not hear....

While they’re telling women that breast removal surgery is a must to survive breast cancer, there’s one breast cancer surgeon who sings a different tune.

This doctor experienced a stunning change of heart after a double mastectomy—removal of both breasts—failed his own wife. Her cancer came back and they were told it was “hopeless.”

The treatment she agreed to next wasn’t chemotherapy or radiation (she’d already tried those, and they didn’t heal her cancer either!) but a treatment he never learned about in medical school...

What saved her life was an all-natural oxygen therapy available without a prescription and backed by six decades of research—including studies in major medical journals—and thousands of success stories.

To his amazement it actually worked...

Watch this free video to see the proof for one easy treatment that’s so safe you can use it at home for a fraction of the cost of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation. This breakthrough discovery is bringing countless women with breast cancer back from death’s door.

Click here to watch the video now!

Can a weed killer help cancer patients?

Could a rocket fuel and weed killer REALLY help cancer patients?     Well, not the products themselves...     But it's possible if you're talking about one of their components, hydrazine sulfate—also called HZ. Let me explain. . . Continued below. . . The Amish Cancer Secret How to cure just about any cancer the Amish way     Is it possible to cure just about any cancer the Amish way? Is it true that many Amish people easily get rid of cancer in just three or four weeks? Are the Amish onto something BIG?     To find out, I interviewed Jakob and Fannie, a young Amish couple from southern Minnesota. Jakob and Fannie are just two out of roughly 800 Amish people each year who travel 2,000 miles by train to go to a little-known cancer clinic.     They told me an amazing, lifesaving tip that everyone should know. . .but almost nobody does.     Click here and I'll share it with you, absolutely FREE.     Besides being ingredients in rocket fuel and weed killers, HZ compounds are also used to refine minerals… as a cleaning agent for soldering metals… and to perform blood tests…     And according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), one HZ compound has been used to treat Hodgkin's disease, melanoma, and lung cancer since the 1960s!     Despite gaining notice from a mainstream medical organization, this inexpensive treatment has endured its share of bad press.     For example, some critics point to early studies that suggest HZ caused lung and liver carcinoma in rats. And others focus on supposed evidence that HZ produces hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) in dogs and rabbits.     Joseph Gold, M.D., director of the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute, has also developed HZ as an anticancer drug. Writing in the MedTruth blog, Dr. Gold exposed some of the tactics the cancer establishment has used in its smear campaign against HZ.     Dr. Gold is critical of NCI's 2004 statement that HZ "has shown no anticancer activity in randomized clinical trials." He says NCI failed to acknowledge the ten years of randomized clinical trials performed by Harbor-UCLA Medical Center from 1981-1990.     He further seeks to debunk claims that HZ may actually cause cancer. Dr. Gold acknowledged that HZ was shown to be carcinogenic in some mice that had ingested the drug in their drinking water since birth.     But he emphasized that there has "never been a case of human cancer reported as a result of HS therapy."     This is something that providers of chemotherapy drugs could NEVER say about their products, which Dr. Gold points out can produce up to 26 percent of "second cancers!" The case of HZ versus HZ     Why are some folks convinced that HZ is a marvelous cancer treatment while others insist it should be avoided?     Well, here are a few things that the conventional cancer heavyweights would prefer you didn't know about this remarkable compound… HZ is a combination of hydrazine salt and sulfuric acid that helps clobber cachexia—the muscle and weight loss that many cancer patients experience… Clinical trials conducted in the 1970s by the Petrov Research Institute of Oncology in St. Petersburg [then Leningrad], Russia found that some advanced cancer patients treated with HZ reported improved appetite, less weight loss, greater strength, or reduced pain. Some patients noticed that tumors either reduced in size or stopped growing… In 1980, randomized, double-blind clinical studies at Harbor UCLA Medical Centre in Los Angeles showed hydrazine sulfate could increase or stabilize a cancer patient's weight and lead to 'statistically significant survival increase' in patients with lung cancer. Successful clinical trials conducted on hydrazine sulfate have been published in peer-reviewed medical journals worldwide… Every controlled clinical trial of HZ performed according to internationally accepted standards of scientific conduct has indicated that it is both safe and effective!     In short, HZ isn't a miracle cure for cancer, but it does appear to relieve some of the unpleasant symptoms, such as pain, weight loss and nausea, and in some patients it actually controls or reduces tumors. It can be used in conjunction with chemotherapy.     Dr. Gold pointed out that the only contrary study results came from NCI-sponsored trials of hydrazine sulfate where researchers used incompatible medications with the test drug! This sort of allegation against NCI is common. It seems the Institute has a habit of sabotaging trials of alternative remedies.     HZ is known to be a potent monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitor, a type of drug used to treat depression. MAO inhibitors are known to have a potentially deadly interaction with other nervous system depressants such as alcohol, barbiturates and other tranquilizers.     Because cancer patients frequently receive tranquilizers and similar compounds the NCI researchers were warned against using HZ in combination with any of these agents—a warning which they chose to ignore, according to Dr. Gold.     He says NCI researchers did use the anti-nausea agent Compazine and benzodiazepine tranquilizers in their animal studies.     Thus it's no surprise that the group published a series of three negative study results in the June 1994 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology.     In some cases the rats that received both HZ and these incompatible chemicals became comatose. What's more, some 50-60 percent of animals that received the forbidden chemical combinations actually DIED!     In a subsequent 1994 investigation conducted by the General Accountability Office (GAO), NCI vigorously refused to acknowledge that HZ was an MAO inhibitor. This denial came despite decades of pharmacology entries describing the compound as just that.     Dr. Gold points out that despite investigations into charges of flawed study procedures—the final GAO report of the NCI studies was entitled, "Contrary to Allegation, NIH Hydrazine Sulfate Studies Were Not Flawed." The choice is yours…     The negative NCI studies might have been intended to put a nail in the coffin of an inexpensive cancer treatment.     Yet today, you can still find HZ marketed in the United States as a dietary supplement. It is also widely used as an anticancer treatment in other countries.     Hydrazine sulfate is typically administered three times a day in a small 60 mg pill. The only potential side effects noted were possible dizziness, drowsiness, mild numbness of fingers and toes, nausea and mild sensations of itching.     Remember to discuss HZ and any other cancer treatment options with your medical professionals.     There are no known compatibility issues with HZ and other cancer treatments or supplements. But because it is an MAO inhibitor, you should not use HZ while taking tranquilizers or alcohol.     With proper use, HZ could be an effective way to combat some sickening side effects of one of our greatest health enemies!

Are You Being Tricked Into Eating Cancer-Causing Foods?

    It's scary to think you don't know what you're really buying at the supermarket. But this is the reality for most everyone in America — and some countries beyond. It's almost impossible to tell if what you're buying is laced with genetically modified foods (GM foods), also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

    Worse still, you may think you're vigilant about eating only "natural" or organic foods, but in a cruel twist of irony, most natural foods in America do contain some GM ingredients.


    And despite their hypey claims of the last decade-and-a-half, GM foods are increasingly being linked to disease — including cancer. There's only one way to be sure you're not slowly poisoning your system.


Continued below. . .

Breast Cancer Breakthrough BANNED! U.S. Government Blocks Release of Doctor's Life-Saving Book     A mammoth discovery is wiping out most breast tumors better than anything seen yet in modern medicine. It makes surgery, radiation and chemotherapy look like something from the Dark Ages.     A Cornell-educated doctor followed more than 25 years of case studies and PROVED this treatment can cure breast cancer. With the discovery I'm going to tell you about, almost every woman makes it and without losing a breast to surgery or taking any toxic chemicals. Even those with late stage cancer!     You've got to include this treatment if you want to have any REAL hope of defeating breast cancer. Click here now and watch a new video presentation about this important discovery on Breast Cancer Coverup

Too good to be true

    I covered GMO foods for the first time in Newsletter #144, where we looked at the claims for bioengineered foods — and the accusations against them.

    The claims make GMOs sound like they will save the world. Advocates say GM foods will control pests and weeds, create seeds that resist drought, and supplement starving cultures with vitamins and abundant amounts of food.

    To date, some sixteen years later, none of those claims have been conclusively proven. Instead, we may be on the brink of an agricultural nightmare.

    Worse, substantial health problems linked to GMOs are starting to surface. Studies are uncovering links to fertility problems and birth defects. There's a cancer link that's been confirmed both by a Russian study and by British environmentalists. Significant organ damage also appears to result from eating certain GM foods.

    On top of all that, we're facing the destruction of biodiversity and the demise of farmers' livelihoods. Really, it's a threat to our basic freedoms — the ability to choose what we eat and to know what we've chosen.

    At the heart of all the controversy is Monsanto, the giant seed company working to pump the world full of genetically modified crops.

"Worst company of 2011"

    Greed and a total disregard for human welfare appear to rule Monsanto, assuming recent allegations against the company hold water.

    In the past, Monsanto has gotten well-deserved flak for suing small farmers for patent infringement when GM seed traits spread into fields surrounding GM crops. Monsanto has also been found guilty of polluting American rivers and landfills with toxic waste. And then recently, Monsanto was declared the worst company of 2011 by the Natural Society for its threat to both the environment and human health.

    Right now, the government of India is in the process of suing Monsanto on bio-piracy charges. They claim the biotech giant failed to get approval before attempting to create GM versions of local eggplant varieties, thereby violating the Indian Biological Diversity Act of 2002.

    The company shows a long pattern of fraud and apathy toward health and sustainability. From where I sit, it looks like it's all about money. After all, records show the company spent $1.4 million lobbying the federal government last year. $2.5 million was spent the year before, and $1.9 million the year before that (small change for this big company, though.)

    Monsanto's lobbying efforts are targeted toward Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make sure no hint of GM crop regulation is ever passed. This especially includes disclosing on the packaging when foods contain GMOs.

What you can do to protect yourself

    By some measures, at least 70 percent of the food in your typical American grocery store is laced with GM foods. You just don't know it, thanks to the massive lobbying efforts of U.S. lawmakers by Monsanto to prevent labeling requirements.

    That doesn't mean there's no hope. It was a grassroots effort that got GM foods out of Europe and other countries, not legislation. Consumers rejected GM foods, forcing food manufacturers to remove GM ingredients. According to EU law, all foods with any amount of GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled.

    As of this writing, GM foods are banned in Germany, Ireland, Hungary, France, and Peru. Peru even went to the effort of passing a monumental 10-year ban on all GM foods — and this was despite previous governmental pressure to legalize GMOs.

    The problem is, you have to know which foods to reject. That's not easy, since Monsanto has fought tooth and nail against labeling laws.

    Which means our only answer is education.

    Here's what you can do to protect yourself right now:

• Buy organic products whenever possible. Just keep in mind you're only guaranteed to be buying GMO-free if there's a label that says "100% USDA Organic." By definition, foods that carry this label must be free of all GM organisms.
• Don't eat processed foods. Most contain soy and corn products, and these are almost guaranteed to be heavy with GMOs.
• Use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide when deciding which brands and products to buy. I suggest you print it out and take it with you when you go to the store. If you have an iPhone, download the free app called "ShopNoGMO."
• Don't buy something simply because it has one of the following labels: natural, naturally made, naturally grown, all natural, or any derivative of those terms. The use of the word "natural" is not regulated and products with those labels often contain substantial amounts of GMOs.
• Avoid processed foods, and anything with maltodextrin, soy lecithin, and high fructose corn syrup. Also, avoid aspartame (NutraSweet) and Milk with rbGH.
• Avoid non-organic varieties of zucchini and crookneck squash, as well as papayas from Hawaii.
• Look at the PLU code on the produce stickers of the fruits and vegetables at the supermarket. Organic produce has five digits, starting with the number 9. Conventionally-grown produce has four digits, starting with the number 4. GM fruit has five numbers, starting with the number 8.

Push now for truth-in-labeling

    I won't deny it's a nice idea to use science to fix the world's problems, especially when it comes to our food supply.

    But evidence against bioengineered food continues to mount, and if something isn't done soon there's a real risk these problems will only escalate. There's hope, at least. For starters, polls over the last 16 years show between 85% and 95% of Americans want mandatory labels on GMO foods.

    And we're already seeing some progress. A bill was recently introduced in Vermont that would require food to be labeled as GM food whether it was made entirely or even partially with GMOs. The bill would also forbid use of the misleading slew of "natural" labels. In April of this year, the Vermont House Agriculture Committee voted in favor of the bill. They now await judiciary approval. California has a similar bill underway.

    It's said that a Monsanto executive once remarked, "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." To him, that means it would merely alarm people for no reason. To me, a skull and crossbones sounds like truth in labeling.

    There's no question we need truth-in-labeling. And the only way to get it is by action at the grassroots level. One of the things you can do is put pressure on big supermarket chains and natural food retailers to implement their own labeling practices.

    Personally, I look forward to the day when we can once again be sure of what we buy in the store. In the meantime, I urge you to take the steps listed above to protect yourself from the potential threats of GM food.

New type of breast cancer is mostly hype

Alarming New Trend in Breast Cancer
Diagnoses — Should You Believe the Hype?

By Carol Parks, Contributing Editor

    Imagine… you go in for your regular mammogram and are assured — happily — that you do not have breast cancer.

    But — your doctor claims — you do have a kind of cancer referred to as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)… also called "stage zero" cancer. Which means irregular cells are lodged in one or more of your breast ducts — the "highways" connecting the milk-producing lobes to your nipples. But they have not escaped to invade the other breast tissue. Yet.



    Will they ever? Maybe… maybe not. Read on…


Continued below. . .

Breast Cancer Breakthrough BANNED! U.S. Government Blocks Release of Doctor's Life-Saving Book     A mammoth discovery is wiping out most breast tumors better than anything seen yet in modern medicine. It makes surgery, radiation and chemotherapy look like something from the Dark Ages.     A Cornell-educated doctor followed more than 25 years of case studies and PROVED this treatment can cure breast cancer. With the discovery I'm going to tell you about, almost every woman makes it and without losing a breast to surgery or taking any toxic chemicals. Even those with late stage cancer!     You've got to include this treatment if you want to have any REAL hope of defeating breast cancer. Click here now and watch a new presentation about this important discovery…

    Being diagnosed with DCIS is complicated, annoying… and horribly frightening.

    On the one hand, you're told not to fret; you don't have invasive cancer and most probably won't (the 10-year survival rate is 99 percent).


    Then again, you're informed you must have the cells surgically removed, along with, in some instances, radiation and chemo… pretty much the same as if you had full-blown cancer.


    Though DCIS is almost always treated, scientists agree that not all cases of DCIS will turn harmful. In fact, most won't. The words "in situ" literally mean "in place" — in other words, non-invasive.


    DCIS comprises 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses, and is 99% curable. Breast cancer stages range from 0 to IV. The higher the stage, the worse the cancer… making stage zero seem pretty harmless.



    So why all the hype — and the aggressive treatment? Is it all a hoax?

It all begins with a mammogram

    DCIS is initially detected through mammography. But the trouble is, mammography is a very poor, inaccurate diagnostic tool.

    Perhaps its most glaring problem is its unacceptably high rate of false positives, up to six percent. A false positive occurs when the test mistakenly indicates cancer is present.


    It should be noted that we here at Cancer Defeated suggest you avoid mammography and use thermography, which has better detection for all stages of breast cancer without the risks of spreading potential cancers via compression and radiation. Detailed information about thermography is available in our Special Report, Breast Cancer Cover-Up.



    Getting back to conventional testing, if a mammogram detects an abnormal spot, the next step is usually biopsy — cutting a small amount of tissue from the breast to be examined under a microscope by a pathologist to see if cancer is present.

A 30-year history of confusion, differences of opinion,
and unnecessary treatment

    There's a huge problem with conventional testing…

    An estimated 17 percent of DCIS cases found through needle biopsy are misdiagnosed.¹



    Far from being the infallible "gold standard" claimed by conventional medicine… biopsy is fraught with errors and differences of opinion.


    DCIS is notoriously tricky to diagnose, prone to outright mistakes and case by case disagreements over whether a cluster of cells is benign or malignant.² Discerning these kinds of minute differences is a challenging area of pathology, the science of examining tissue samples for evidence of disease.


    Plus, pathologists vary widely in level of experience and expertise. Some read as few as 50 breast biopsies per year — far less than the acknowledged 250 a biologist needs to perform before you can have confidence in his or her ability.


    Add that to the fact that no diagnostic standards exist for DCIS, nor do any requirements of expertise levels in the pathologists who read them, and you have a real quagmire.



    So maybe this statement by Dr. Shahla Masood, head of pathology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville is not so shocking…


    He told the New York Times, "There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin."³


    Indeed, even where your pathology report is done can affect the diagnosis.



    Many of the hundreds of thousands of biopsies performed each year are done in small community hospitals, where the pathologist may only read a few breast biopsies a year. Thus, they lack exposure to atypical breast lesions. The local pathologist might not even be board certified.


    In larger hospitals, the diagnosis may be decided by a tumor board.


    Beyond diagnostic errors, there's a difference of opinion as to what even constitutes DCIS.


    Dr. Lagios, a San Francisco pathologist who reviews slides for second opinions, uses a criterion that does not classify some breast lesions smaller than 2 mm as DCIS, even if they possess other markers of it.


    On the other hand, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston — also a respected center for breast pathology — those same lesions are considered DCIS.⁴

"We have troubling news to tell you…"

    In 2006, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure cancer group released a disturbing study.

    In it, an estimated 90,000 cases of women who'd received a DCIS or invasive breast cancer diagnosis either (1) did not have the disease, or (2) their pathologist made another error resulting in incorrect treatment.


    This wasn't really a shock to the medical community, since this problem had been cited in the medical literature numerous times.


    Take the illustrative stories of the women in the July 19, 2010 New York Times story as a case in point…



    All of them began their troubling journey with mammography showing a spot… which led to biopsy… and a (mis)diagnosis of DCIS… which then progressed to painful, debilitating, and disfiguring breast surgery… and one even led to radiation therapy — only to be told later that they never had cancer at all.


    Now imagine you've gone through that hellish series of events — and lived with the terrifying fear of invasive breast cancer — only to receive the troubling news that all the fear and pain was for nothing.


    Not very reassuring, even though…

You've got plenty of company

    An estimated one million women will be living with a DCIS diagnosis by 2020… and 50,000 new cases are diagnosed every year, just in the U.S.

    DCIS incidence rose from 1.87 per 100,000 in 1973-75, to a staggering 32.5 per 100,000 in 2004. A more than seventeen times increase… according to a published report by Beth Vernig, PhD and colleagues, in the January 13, 2010 online issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Virnig is professor of public health at the University of Minnesota, School of Public Health.



    Of course, that doesn't mean there's a sudden increase in this illness, or pre-illness, or whatever it is. It just means that testing has led to a massive increase in the number of cases diagnosed. Mammography may be responsible for the dramatic increase. Before widespread mammography use began in the 1980s, DCIS was rare. Now, since we assume early detection is the best way to "cure" cancer, we actively go looking for it.



    In addition to finding cancer in earlier stages, doctors sometimes find cells in a twilight zone between normal breast cells and cancerous ones — a condition known as DCIS or "stage zero" cancer.

The standard treatment protocol

    With few exceptions (notably elderly women with other health issues), standard practice is to treat DCIS as cancer, rather than monitor it to see if it progresses over time.

    This means doctors are surely over-treating some (perhaps many) patients. Conventional medicine claims to lack the necessary tools to identify who should be treated and who should be watched. They may have a point, but…



    With a DCIS diagnosis, your current treatment is almost always surgery — either a lumpectomy or mastectomy, depending on how widespread the cells appear to be in the ducts. As Allegra says, "it's hard to imagine not doing any surgery."⁵ (Emphasis mine.)



    If the cells are concentrated in one location, you'll get a lumpectomy followed by radiation… which conventional medicine says slashes the risk of recurrence in that breast (but not the other one) by half. But if abnormal cells are fairly widespread, they'll typically advise a mastectomy and skip the post-op radiation.


    Some women, particularly young women with a family history of breast cancer or genetic mutation (placing them at higher risk) even opt for a double mastectomy.


    The rate of double mastectomies for DCIS patients skyrocketed from 4.1 percent in 1998 to 13.5 percent in 2005 — well more than a three-fold increase — according to a study published in April 2009 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.


    Your doctor may sometimes recommend Tamoxifen (a chemotherapy drug) along with surgery.

So, what if YOU get a DCIS diagnosis?

    First, take a deep breath and realize that mistakes are regularly made. There's no need to panic.

    If you're diagnosed with DCIS or any type of early stage breast cancer, ALWAYS get a second — if not a third and fourth — opinion. False positive rates are so high, the diagnostic criteria so subjective, and the risks of surgery, radiation, and chemo too great to forgo this step.


    Before you make any treatment decisions, have your biopsy results reviewed specifically by a breast specialist.



    As mentioned above, there are pathologists who specialize in rendering second opinions. I would certainly be willing to pay for it out of my own pocket, if necessary, before rushing into conventional medicine's slice and burn protocol.


    Some doctors are increasingly urging the cautionary principle even with a clear DCIS diagnosis. A wait and see attitude. There seems to be a growing body of evidence suggesting that some breast cancers may spontaneously regress without treatment.⁶


    Certainly a "wait and see" stance gives you a heads-up and an opportunity to engage in some of the strategies we discuss here and in our publications.

The controversy about over-treatment

    Lawsuits from women who have been wrongly diagnosed -- and undergone radical disfiguring surgeries as a result -- may be affecting the treatment landscape and giving credence to a less aggressive approach.

    Conventional medicine is quick to rush you into surgery. But researchers at the University of California-San Francisco see DCIS as part of a larger problem of cancer over-treatment.


    Laura Esserman, director of the Carol Franc Buck Cancer Center and Professor of Surgery and Radiology, co-authored the 'controversial' analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2009… which calls for a new look at screening for both breast and prostate cancer.


    Her argument: Mammography catches more early cancers, but the number caught at more advanced stages has not declined at a similar rate — which you'd expect if they were simply identifying early cases before they progress.



    So screening may just be finding cases that don't need treatment.

What if we took the carcinoma out of ductal
carcinoma in situ -- DCIS --and eased up on treatments?

    There's growing pressure in the medical community for dropping the "carcinoma" from DCIS — saying it is troubling and misleading (which is impossible to disagree with).

    These same proponents also suggest DCIS as an excellent candidate for "active surveillance" — a watching-waiting strategy that skips surgery and radiation unless the condition progresses to higher risk.



    So far, most of the drive for active surveillance seems to be coming from UC-San Francisco. Dr. Esserman has been especially forthright in demanding change in the naming and management of minimal risk cancers including DCIS.⁷



    She advocates that minimal risk lesions should not be called cancer, and proposed a new term… saying the new name encourages a search for good outcomes without over-treating a rather benign condition.


    With DCIS, "the bulk of what we find is not high grade… less than five percent of DCIS turns out to be 'something else' including invasive cancer," explained Dr. Esserman to Medscape Oncology in an interview.



    Only high-grade DCIS tends to progress to invasive breast cancer. "If if doesn't look like high-grade DCIS, we should leave it alone. We would eliminate two-thirds of all biopsies if we did," says Dr. Esserman.



    She states that there's sufficient data to rethink our entire approach to DCIS.


    I'm sure eliminating two-thirds of all biopsies and practicing active surveillance will rattle those whose livelihoods depend on it. But that's exactly the route I'd choose.


Kindest regards,

Lee Euler,
Publisher

---

Footnotes from 1st article:

¹http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20cancer.html?_r=3&th&emc=th


²http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20cancer.html?_r=3&th&emc=th
³http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20cancer.html?_r=3&th&emc=th
⁴http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20cancer.html?_r=3&th&emc=th


⁵http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2009/10/22/
the-confusion-over-dcis-what-to-do-about-stage-zero-breast-cancer

⁶http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/584147


⁷Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA. 2009;302:1685-1692).

References from second article:

"Cancer Death Rates Continue to Decline," by Katie Moisse. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/01/04/cancer-deaths-continue-to-decline/



"Cancer death rates continue to drop," by Amanda Gardner, HealthDay. http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/medical/cancer/story/2012-01-05/Cancer-death-rates-continue-to-drop/52387824/1


"Report: U.S. Cancer Death Rates Continue to Drop," by Dr. David B. Samadi. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/01/10/report-us-cancer-death-rates-continue-to-drop/


Fighting Cancer, ebook, by K.W.A. Jayawardana. http://www.nadula.info/healinghelp/FightingCancer/pdf/5%20Cancer%20statistics.pdf

The Forbidden Truth About Cancer

The Biggest LIES About Cancer That Could Kill You! "A real lifesaver for anyone who suffers from cancer—or wants to avoid it!" —Bob Livingston Urgent Email Medical Alert Exposes... The Biggest LIES About Cancer That Could Kill You! Fighting cancer in America is a $200 billion-a-year business, so you'd think we would have made progress in saving lives. But the shocking truth is nearly 570,000 Americans died from cancer in 2008... and there is no end in sight. Why? Because up to 98 percent of conventional cancer treatments FAIL! Worse, the Medical Establishment is lying through its teeth to suppress scores of safe, natural, inexpensive cancer remedies and cures that work like magic. Enough is enough! You deserve to know the truth about cancer. Please read on... In this FREE Email Medical Alert, discover the truth about... Chemotherapy: Why 90 percent of oncologists would refuse it if they had cancer Mammograms: Why it harms 10 women for every one it helps Cancer drugs: Why you can get better results by doing nothing Natural cancer cures: Why the government is suppressing these miracle cures Plus... What may be "the safest medical therapy ever devised for cancer"... How to control the growth of cancer cells with naturally occurring proteins... The only natural cure for estrogen-dominated breast cancer... The alkaline water cure that turns the tide on cancer! Click Here to Claim Your Copy!